research

Research as change:
GLBTTQ and allies' relationships in transition

Frances Ricks and Silvia Vilches

Abstract: Increasing numbers of young people
are speaking up about sexual orien–tation and gender identity issues,
yet our institutions are ill-prepared to accommodate diversity, never
mind discuss issues. A participatory re search project at the University
of Victoria gathered experiences of managing visibility, made
recommendations for change, and initiated action to transform the work
and study environment. The success of managing visibility depended on
maintaining an open attitude, developing an atmosphere of trust and
humour, and using the power of networks to enact change, one
relationship at a time.

Craig Bowman, executive director of National Youth
Advocacy, an umbrella organization for gay and lesbian youth groups, has
stated that

It’s not that it’s unhealthy or more unsafe to be
gay, lesbian or bisexual, or transgendered by virtue of that fact alone,
but it is in a society in which young people are having to face the fear
of being beat up, being called names, getting thrown out of the house.
Those are terrifying things. Young people are having to struggle with
that. (Wildman, 2000, p. 40)

While sexual minority1
members across Canada are coming out at younger ages and
speaking in public about sexuality and gender identity, institutions are
ill prepared to accept and discuss such matters in the public arena of
work. This is no less true within our Canadian universities. While there
are advocacy groups within academe, such as Gay Pride, Lesbian Child and
Youth Care Workers, or Allies of Sexual Minority Members, such
organizations only offer safe havens for some sexual minority members
during their years of academic study. As constituency groups, they lack
the power and scope to address the systemic barriers that exist for
sexual minority faculty, students, and staff within the academic work
and study environment.

It takes courage to address such matters
systemically, and this is the story of an intervention planned and
executed by an advocacy group that emerged at the University of
Victoria. This group dedicated itself to understanding the issues for
sexual minority members in order to create a healthier work and study
environment for all. We share our experience to encourage other
institutions, particularly those that serve youth, to consider their
systemic barriers for sexual minority youth and how they might be
addressed.

In the summer of 1998 the newly appointed Women's
Advisor took on the task of exploring what it was like to be a sexual
minority member within the university community. The initial inquiry was
to conduct a literature review to find out what approaches had been
taken to address discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, Two
Spirited2, transgendered,
and queer people (GLBTTQ), particularly in Canadian academic
institutions. The literature survey (Vilches & Ricks, 1998) revealed
extensive exploration and theory generation on homophobia in both
academic and non-academic studies, as well as burgeoning fields of study
in the areas of gender and sexuality and queer theory. There was
overwhelming evidence that lesbians and gay people experienced hostility
and prejudice (D–Augelli,1989; Page, 1998; Rabson,1998). Qualitative
explorations of the theoretical constructs of homophobia, cultural
studies of the lives of gay people, and psychological measures of
homophobia in the population were available in addition to documentation
of high rates of violence (Baker & Fishbein,1998; Herek,1991; Walter &
Hayes, 1998). This presented a well-rounded picture of societal
attitudes toward GLBTTQ people. However, there was little evidence about
the effects of these attitudes on people’s lives within work
institutions. Understanding these effects on people at work seemed
critical for understand–ing what steps need to be taken to address
systemic barriers and to create equal access and opportunities for
sexual minority members.

Wanting both to take action and to work with GLBTTQ
members of the campus community, the first action was to create an
advisory committee com–posed of both heterosexual and non-heterosexual
members. The process by which the committee formed was one of
exploration and inquiry. This process foreshadowed a research project
that is presented in this article. The suc–cess of the committee’s work
can be attributed to the questions people raised, as well as their
commitment to creating a better work environment.

Participatory design
The approach taken was participatory, exploratory, and qualitative.
Participatory approaches require that community members become invested
in the research process and researchers be part of the community. In
participatory approaches, community members determine the focus of the
research. When community members determine the focus and thus the
questions, there is more assurance that the results are relevant to the
setting and couched in the language and beliefs of the community
(Stringer, 1999). The committee members formed the research plan, acted
as the pilot focus group, and par–ticipated in facilitating the focus
groups. The committee members” presence in the focus groups ensured that
listeners were attuned to the contributions of different participants.

Fifty-three people were interviewed in focus groups
and one-to-one interviews. The questions were designed to inquire into
their experiences, whether they were GLBTTQ or heterosexual community
members. The questions were as follows:

What interested you in participating in
this study?

What do you think gay, lesbian, bisexual,
Two Spirited, transgendered, or queer people experience in
universities?

What has your experience been?

How does that impact/ affect you?

What do you do about the impacts, if
anything?

Do you have any suggestions for change,
and if so, what? Are there any messages you want to be sure the
university hears?

Gathering the data
The University of Victoria Human Subjects Ethics Review Committee
approved the project in August 1999. To recruit participants, posters
and electronic mail notices were distributed in early September.
Committee members served as the first focus group, with heterosexual
members of the committee interviewing the non-heterosexual members. “Having the committee serve as the first focus group also allowed the
Committee to explore the issues with each other, a process that gave
members a shared grounding and respect for the personal contributions of
each other and future participants” (Committee on the Status of Sexual
Minorities, 2000).

The committee conducted six focus groups involving
32 non-heterosexual community members including students, staff, and
faculty. Eight other participants were accommodated by personal
interviews. The focus group participants were diverse, representing
different sexual minority groups, First Nations” students, students who
came from out of the country to attend the University of Victoria, and
instructors on campus. There were more women (n = 19) than men (n = 13),
and proportionately more staff (n = 5) and instructors (n = 6) than
undergraduate students (n =12) compared to the population distribution
of the university.

Focus groups were chosen as the way to obtain
information because we wanted to encourage participants to share in a
manner consistent with their social group. For example, a women's
student group might encourage sharing that is relevant to their
experiences as women and students, whereas a faculty group would
encourage sharing relevant to faculty experiences. In addition, focus
groups not only generate data but also allow an opportunity to connect
with others and to learn from each other. This strategy prompted the
beginning of conversations on campus about a topic that is not usually
discussed (Committee on the Status of Sexual Minorities, 2000).

Committee members reviewed the results of the GLBTTQ
focus groups and discussed what to take forward to the heterosexual
groups. The intent was to present key findings from the GLBTTQ groups in
order to probe into how heterosexual people understood the experiences
of GLBTTQ people. This was an essential element for promoting effective
dialogue and action across the groups. Heterosexual groups were
conducted with 6 heterosexual instructors, 10 staff, and 4 students with
representation from the sciences (n = 3) and arts (n = 3) as well as
from administrative areas (n = 10).

Understanding the results
All the contributions from focus groups and interviews were transcribed,
analyzed for themes, and then reviewed by the committee. The material
continued to be sorted until themes began to emerge as the strategies
people used to deal with GLBTTQ issues. This provided essential
information about the experiences of people on campus, and surprisingly,
most GLBTTQ people said they were “having a pretty good time,” meaning
that they didn’t have horrific experiences to report. However, this
masked significant overall effects.

During the process of gathering information, and as
the results became clearer, the committee continued in its commitment to
action. For example, early results about student experiences in
residences prompted contact with the housing manager. The housing
manager decided to involve the undergraduate gay and lesbian students” organization (U.Vic Pride Alliance) and establish diversity committees
(multi-cultural and GLBTTQ and allies). The manager also asked a housing
staff member to join the Committee on the Status of Sexual Minorities,
and this person helped foster other initiatives in on-campus housing,
including a safe spaces initiative, enhanced sensitivity training for
residence advisors, and special events. Networking in this manner
facilitated change on campus through committee activities
(anti-homophobia comedy event, speaking to classes and at events, doing
community outreach, and submitting a poster to the university equity
poster contest, which won the People’s Choice award). These activities
are important as they speak to the changes that were evolving during the “research as change proc–ess” (Douglas, 2002). The process provided
opportunity and evidence for change and is as meaningful as the
experiences reported by the focus groups.

Focus group themes
The details of the experiences of people at the University of Victoria
are in the committee’s report, GLBTTQ Spoken Here (2000), which is
available from the Equity Office of the University of Victoria. The
findings led directly to recommendations about ways to implement change
and were based on the following themes.

The title of the report says it all. GLBTTQ Spoken
Here represents the pri–mary theme of the need to make sexual minorities
visible on campus and be able to speak about their presence, their
experiences, and the experiences of their allies. For many participants,
being able to talk about GLBTTQ issues was a “relief” regardless of
their sexual orientation. At last sexual orientation could be spoken
about. At last it was acknowledged that there are sexual minority
members on campus. At last both heterosexual and non-heterosexual were
being asked to discuss what many knew all along but were afraid to make
transparent in an open and understanding dialogue.

Second to the theme of visibility on campus was the
theme of managing visibility. Instructions that GLBTTQ people received,
such as to “tone it down,” “to not assert who you are,” “to put aside
your sexual orientation because that has nothing to do with the
University,” or just the feeling of “not knowing how safe it was going
to be” were essentially instructions to “manage” their appearance or
visibility within the environment. Heterosexuals were managing the
presence of sexual orientation in their environments as well (for
example, keeping a colleague’s sexual orientation secret), and sexual
minority members were adroitly managing to stay safe.

The lack of safety and the need to manage visibility
posed particular problems for students when instructors were ignorant,
homophobic, or did not know how to handle class discussions pertaining
to sexual minority is sues. Students sometimes reacted inappropriately
by laughing, making jokes, or expressing derision about GLBTTQ content
in class. Managing visibility in what sexual minority and heterosexual
community members perceived as an unsafe environment interfered with
learning and work.

A third theme was the work environment theme that
pointed to the lack of safety to discuss personal circumstances that are
part of one’s life. This included not being able to engage in such
ordinary practices as acknowledging one’s partner at work, being invited
to and attending faculty and university social events, or knowing
whether it was a good or bad idea to be explicit about one’s sexual
minority status in an application for employment. For example, sexual
minority status needs to be acknowledged on work applications because it
affects obtaining partner benefits. In spite of this, all forms at the
university assume heterosexual partnerships.

A final theme was not being able to manage certain
structures of the university that maintain old assumptions and ways of
relating. For example, the university library is organized to represent
sexual minority status as “abnormal or deviant” and therefore material
is classified in the “HQ” section between sexual deviance and
prostitution. Graffiti and vandalism communicating hatred toward sexual
minority members of the community was present and had to be confronted
daily. A transgendered participant dealt with inaccessible washroom and
recreation facilities because of stereotyped gender labelling. There was
an added complexity to managing when a person was gay and also a member
of another marginalized group, such as ethnic or cultural groups. Being
First Nations or handicapped, for example, is already difficult because
the dominant culture marginalizes these groups on the basis of
prejudices like “uneducated,” “drunk,” “stupid,” or “not belonging
here.” The GLBTTQ person has to struggle with whether to come out and
make themselves a target in yet another way. There is the added risk of
alienating themselves from one minority group by making explicit their
membership in another.

The understanding of heterosexual experiences with
GLBTTQ issues was enlightening, considering that most research focuses
on homophobic attitudes of heterosexuals (assuming ignorance and
homophobia). Heterosexuals were aware of GLBTTQ issues and felt like
they were acting in isolation in their attempts to counter homophobia
and support their GLBTTQ friends and acquaintances. Some heterosexual
individuals acted publicly as allies and faced as much violence as
GLBTTQ people, particularly verbal violence and social isolation.
Negative experiences for heterosexual participants occurred when other
heterosexual people were homophobic and went on the attack. This
resulted in some heterosexuals “being a silent witness” to painful
negotiations of GLBTTQ people at work.

Ideas for change from participants
While 52 people had many different ideas for changing the systemic
barriers within the university, the most important message participants
communicated was to “educate, educate, educate” community members so
that the dialogue could be more open and inclusive. Committee members
believed that education of community members could result in enhanced
safety, understanding, less stereotyping, opportunities for GLBTTQ
scholarship, and the celebration of gay culture and history. Here are
their suggestions for how to make the university a different place for
GLBTTQ members and others engaged in the issues of sexual minorities.

Everyone take responsibility for the
issues and be part of the solution.

Set standards and do not allow (zero
tolerance for) inappropriate behaviour.

The primary need for change was the need to
understand that GLBTTQ are around us, among us and part of us. If this
were understood, the problems that started through ignorance might begin
to dissolve. (Committee on the Status of Sexual Minorities, 2000, p. 72)

Discussion
Our personal growth in coming to terms with not knowing what we did not
know about GLBTTQ experiences prompted the writing of this article. The
lessons from the research demand that we break the silence and address
the invisibility of GLBTTQ issues in all institutions within our
culture. This would be especially true for education, social service,
and health organizations that work with children, youth, young adults,
and families as these institutions are socializing the next generation.
Socialization occurs from our experiences in this network of
institutions. To the extent that we continue to condone the silencing of
these issues, we continue to create the isolating circumstances that
both heterosexual and GLBTTQ people experience.

Two levels of the institution must be transformed:
those who work in any institution and those who are served by the
institution. This is no small task since it includes everyone within a
particular institution. In essence we are talking about changing the
culture of the institution, one that is embedded within a larger
culture.

Our own initial report identified transformational
objectives: create a safe and welcoming environment; invest in the use
of language that helps to educate (gay, lesbian, bisexual, Two Spirited,
transgendered, and queer); ensure equal access and opportunity for all
members of the culture; and foster support and belonging, to mention a
few.

While these are noble and enabling objectives, they
result in putting the cart before the horse. Our understanding from the
change process is that what needs to happen first is a deeper personal
understanding of how we are embedded in the culture of silence and
discrimination. We suggest that it is the lack of understanding of this
phenomenon that prevents the discovery of new ways of being together.

Be bold; break the silence
No doubt the first action to take is one of simply acknowledging that
there are sexual minority members within our systems. As our
participants noted in their responses, they simply want to be
acknowledged as existing and then want to fit in like anyone else. Many
organizations are beginning to make explicit that there are sexual
minority members within their ranks and welcome them. Others are less
sure what to do, so they acknowledge GLBTTQ people by separating them
and making them special. An example of this would be the special radio
shows for sexual minority members that are currently offered by most
stations. While specific supports are important, they are only necessary
because society as a whole is a problem; the whole picture needs to
change.

Members of organizations need to be able to mention
and speak about the differences within the sexual minority culture. For
example, there are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, Two Spirited,
transgendered, and queers. These are meaningful terms that indicate
specific cultures, and the use of the words communicates an
understanding beyond “weirdness.” Naming gives space and credibility.
Conversations with sexual minority members need to include invitations
to be included (–Please bring your partner to the party–). It is
important to make the most mundane and typical comments as you do with
others (“Where are you taking your partner for her birthday, your
anniversary, or on your vacation?”). Likewise when there are meaningful
events with a partner they deserve comment (“Sorry to hear that your
partner is so ill–).

For organizations that deal with health, social, and
educational matters there must be tolerance, acceptance, and recognition
for special issues that can arise for members of this culture. In social
services, for example, youth with special needs regarding gender
identification need not be confused with youth who have made explicit
their sexual preference. Staff may need assistance in dealing with their
own issues of gender and sexual identity in order to work with youth
with equanimity and grace.

Dealing with diversity
While we seemingly have come to terms with the fact that men and women
are different but equal, we are not at the same place with variations on
sexual orientation identity. Acknowledging sexual minority members
within our culture, using explicit language, and making distinctions of
what is healthy and not healthy forces us to deal with diversity of
sexual orientation, sexual behaviour, and the interaction of sexuality
and gender identity. Sexual orientation identity springs from sex but is
not only about sex. We collectively seem to define alternate sexual
orientation as “other,” as in “not heterosexual,” precisely because we
are trying so hard not to notice the difference. Our perspective makes
the point that opposition to heterosexual sex is not about sex but is
about relationships. Sexual variation is typical and natural within
human behaviour regardless of sexual orientation.

Our dominant culture does not do a good job of
talking about relationship as opposed to sex. Therefore, the
relationships that gay people have, and that their families and
communities are built on, are obscured by the focus on sexuality rather
than on the sustaining features of relationship. Our blindness from this
sexual bias gets in the way of recognizing the diverse relationship
structures of the family: divorce, separation, blended family, extended
family, adoptive family, single-parent family, and emergent family are
only some of the kin formulations used in our culture. Yet we hold
steadfastly to the belief that we are mostly two-parent, intact, nuclear
families. No doubt sexual minority relationships are bold reminders of
variety in family forms that are pervasive even though they are not
acknowledged and made explicit.

Addressing issues of relationship
The need to acknowledge the diversity of sexual preferences, to
understand that gayness is about relationships more than about sex and
that diversity of relationships is our utmost challenge opens up new
opportunities for change in all our relationships, including those at
work. It means acknowledging what we know, speaking about the
unspeakable, and forging new ways of talking and being together. No
doubt heterosexuals and GLBTTQ will come to discover new things about
themselves and each other. Mostly they will discover that they are not
as liberal, aware, or informed as they think they are. This always
offers promise!

Our promise was found through research as change.
Our inquiry process fostered mutual learning and created the opportunity
to redress GLBTTQ issues. It was the experience of vulnerability,
exploring a taboo subject, that eventually resulted in a discovery of
support, an expanding network, and hilarious laughter, the best medicine
of all. It was the committee’s commitment to inquiry that fostered new
understanding and initiated systemic change.

Notes
1 The terms sexual minority, non-heterosexual, GLBTTQ (gay, lesbian,
bisexual, Two Spirited, transgendered, and queer), gay, and queer are
used in this article at different points. Sexual minority was chosen to
emphasize the investigation of equality for a minority status group in
society. It is not a term used by GLBTTQ people when identifying
themselves.
2 Some First Nations people have adopted the traditional term “Two-Spirited,” which indicates a spiritual status as well as being of a
gender and attracted to that gender (i.e., having “two spirits”.

References

Baker, J.G., & Fishbein, H. (1998). The development of
prejudice towards gays and lesbians by adolescents. Journal of
Homosexuality, 36 (1), 89-100. Committee on the Status of Sexual
Minorities, University of Victoria. (2000). GLBTTQ spoken here: Creating
a script for a taboo subject. Victoria, BC: Author.

D–Augelli, A. (1989). Lesbians” and gay men's
experiences of discrimination and harassment in a university community.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 17 (3), 317-321.

Vilches, S., & Ricks, F. (1998). The status of
sexual minorities within academic settings. A discussion paper
submitted to the Equity Working Group of the Human Rights Committee of
the University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.